> I know you are joking about the slavery issue - but I think that a
lot of people
> think that a clone means a duplicate. Although this is true
genetically, a clone
> is much more a "twin" than anything else, and a twin is a unique
person.
The difference between my twin and my clone is that my parents
incurred the costs for delivery and educating my twin. A clone seems more
like a product then a person ... Note this is certainly a nice proof for the
existence of memes. It seems that depending on how you spin the production
a clone could have the same human rights as a tissue sample or it could be
an actual human being. This would be especially true after we can grow the
clone in a vat ala Brave New World.
> I am not at all threatened by the concept of clones and cloning. I
am threatened by
> the concepts that:
>1> clones are somehow less than people -
I would argue that depending on the circumstances for the origin of
the clone it could actually be more than most people. <see point 3>
> 2> Clones dont have "God given" souls.
Exactly. Clones are the counter example for the concept of
"inalienable rights". Imagine a "build a clone kit" that you could buy at
Walmart - you would replicate DNA taken from say cells from your cheek.
Then you would embed that DNA in an artificially produced egg. Finally
you'd place the egg in your clone-a-matic which I can imagine looking a lot
like a bread maker. (Actually you'd probably just put your starting cells
in your clone-a-matic). In nine-months you'd have your clone - perhaps
there would be an entire service industry devoted to raising your clone
depending on what you wanted from it. If it were just an organ bank then
you'd pay a nominal fee for clone maintainance - sort of like a garage. The
point of these places would be to keep your clone in a tabula rasa state so
the clients don't have any nasty ethical problems like you're talking about.
On the other hand, for the busy executive who wants to enjoy parenting
without the nasty emotional and financial burdens of marriage what could be
better than a clone?
> 3> The rich will use cloning as a tool over the poor
NO clones would be good for the poor :=). One of the things the
poor could be best at would be caring for clones ... hasn't that always been
the function of the poor to care for our children, our elderly, and our
livestock? Industrialization took the poor away from their natural function
and placed them in factories. Biotechnology is allowing them to return to
their natural state.
My point here is that social stratifications atomize humanity by
creating the distinction between us and them. A really succesful memetic
engineer <ala the bad popes, or Ronald Reagan's handlers> tries to apply
these stratifications recursively ... with the engineer being at the center
of the layers of "usness". It's easy to imagine a military-biotechnology
complex built around some sort of biological elite - ala the movie Gattaca.
Of course the original basis for the elite would be economic because it
would take capital to establish genetic superiority.
>Just my off the cuff thoughts.
Me2.